Jackman v. Lawrence Drilling & Development Co.

Citations

• 106 Kan. 59
• 187 P. 258
• 1920 Kan. LEXIS 452

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Cancellation op Written Instruments — Nature of Evidence Required. It is often said that in certain classes of cases proof is required that is “clear, distinct and satisfactory,” “clear and convincing,” “clear, precise and indubitable.” These and similar expressions convey substantially the same meaning, which is, that the evidence should be “clear,” that is, not ambiguous, doubtful, equivocal, or contradictory, and should be perspicuous and pointed to the issue under investigation; and “satisfactory” in the sense that the source from which it comes is of such a credible nature that the court and jury, as men of ordinary intelligence, discretion, and caution, may repose confidence in it. Absolute certainty is, of course, not required.</p> <p>2. Same — Findings Supported by Evidence. The evidence upon which the judgment in the present case rests is examined, and held to meet the test of “clear, distinct and satisfactory proof,” and the findings being supported by competent and substantial testimony, it 'will be presumed that the trial court applied the proper test in weighing the facts. (Woddell v. Allbrecht, 80 Kan. 736, 104 Pa.c. 559.)</p> <p>3. Same — Presumption that Instrument on Record Speaks the Truth— Presumption is Rebuttable. While there is a presumption that the register of deeds performed his duty properly, and that an instrument as recorded speaks the truth, the presumption is rebuttable. The original instrument is primary, the recorded copy secondary, evidence. If a variance appear between the original, as filed, and the record, the original prevails; and in a case where the original, after being recorded, is lost (proper foundation being laid), oral testimony is competent to prove the contents of the original instrument, and that it differs from the recorded copy.</p> <p>4. Same — Oil-and-gas Lease ■ — • Incorrectly Recorded — Evidence —• Findings. The plaintiff purchased a tract of land subject to an oil and gas lea